Dill v. State

Decided June 14, 1921

Alabama Court of Appeals · decided 1921-06-14

P. Heflin, Judge. Ered Dill, Jr., was convicted of seduction and he appealed. While the ease of Herbert v. State, 16 Ala. App. 213, 77 South. 83, holds that the evidence objected to was admissible, this case as to this was overruled by the Supreme Court (201 Ala. 532, 78 South. 886), and the court erred in admitting the testimony (137 Ala('59, 34 South. 840; 100 Ala. 130, 14 South. 472 ; 86 Ala. 54, 5 South. 419; 109 Ala. 45, 19 South. 491; 68 Ala. 599).

Relies on Ashurst v. Arnold-Henegar-Doyle Co. · 16 Ala. App. 213 - Herbert v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1921-06-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1965

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

*188 SAMFORD, J.

¶1 Aftfer proof of the act of intercourse which was claimed by the state to have been the basis for the charge, the state was permitted, over the timely objection, -and exception of defendant, to prove six other subsequent acts. However much this court might be inclined to the views expressed in Herbert v. State, 16 Ala. App. 213, 77 South. 83, that ease, on this point, has been overruled by the Supreme Court in Herbert v. State, 201 Ala. 480, 78 South. 386, and this court, by virtue of the statute is bound by it.

¶2 There are other questions presented by the record, but they will not probably arise upon another trial.

¶3 For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

¶4 Reversed and remanded.